Just my opinion, John, but she comes off as bitter & cynical; as another poster stated, she seems to have a clear disdain for hobbyists that may extend to her clients, hence her alias.

John, I didn't get off the boat yesterday-------I know providers "big O's" are an act in many cases------but if one is going to be SO sour about this "grand illusion",it'd be a good idea to get out of the hobbying profession.

He is the one who sees something that isn't there, thus my calling him and angry man.

I had zero distain or hatred at all in my intentions when I posted that. It is a simple fact that women have a much harder time cumming. It is also a fact that most men think they make us cum.  Where is the cynicism in the truth?

I happen to really like my clients by the way

No WhatTheHell, Priapus has got you pegged. You don't say you dislike your clients but the tone of your message reveals a lot about you.

You take obvious glee at taking a shot at the hobbyists here and at men in general and all from behind an alias.  Obviously you know if your “clueless” clients saw your post your business would dry up faster than the time it takes to read this post. You are in a service industry and you would seem to hold your customers in disdain. It’s time to move on then.

Obviously a lot of providers fake it as not every client matches what they actually need to get off. I have been with providers who’s attempts at moans of ecstasy make me roll my eyes at the poor acting but occasionally you do meet someone where a connection is made the providers orgasm’s are genuine.

I've lived abroad. If you find a truly civilized society let me know. Maybe we can go there together


And, if you read his posts it is obvious that he is angry that I popped his fantasy bubble. So yes, he is angry about that, not in general. I should have been more specific.

Have a great day!!

WhatTheHell
(who has super powers!)

and just who the fuck said that it is harder for a woman to cum than a man? As I have gotten older it is a rare ocassion that I cum before my sexual partner.

super powers my fucking ass

With my super powers I see that you are in the camp of orgasm believers. They are a hard group to convince

It is fact that it is harder for a woman to cum. Fact.

Read John's post.

FACT.

Dream well tonight!

How any guy can write that he gave a woman 2 orgasms vaginally while he is still pounding away, and BELIEVE it, is beyond me.

But maybe the suspension of disbelief should not be tampered by telling the truth on the board. Guys want to feel like a land baron with their little ol' timeshare.


HalfHour

It is a fantasy so there is nothing *wrong* in believing it. But it is kind of amusing. That was all I meant, but as you can see many men do not want the truth.

Book the tickets and let's get eccentric

Re: i'm out of the game at the moment

I sincerely wish you the best of luck with your health issues, textcat.

Let me know when we can run away together

My reply shows up before the original discussion! Checked my settings and my time zone was off. My bad.

While I disagree with her assessment of Pria as an "angry man" I agree with her about providers and orgasms overall.

I posted extensively on why, for evolutionary and other reasons, she is correct. Rather than repeat that data, I've included a link here for those who are interested.

Obviously, that doesn't apply in all cases as there are providers who have the luxury of specifically selecting men for chemistry, attractiveness, etc. But for the typical provider who, according to LG's survey sees 120+ new clients yearly, has 400 appointments and has seen 860+ clients ... yes, I believe my assessment of the unlikelihood of orgasm with a client is correct except in rare cases.

she seemed to be stating her case rather neutrally, i thought.

If you saw a running blender, would you put your dick in it and then sue the blender manufacturer or the electric company for your injury?

This was a blatant and gross B&S, not even a "kinda B&S)"... and you stayed.

Dude, the shit is on you now, and she's laughing all the way to the bank. Don't get pissed at her (yes, bad behavior) for your stupidity and your participation. Man up and take ownership of how foolishly you acted. When you can do that without getting all worked up about it, THEN you can decide what you want to do.

calling him an angry man is the same thing he did to you.

now i suppose that turn about IS fair play, but i need significantly better evidence that "mind reading" like that is a "good thing".

AFAIK neither of you is gifted with super powers.  

it is common in the US to accept "mind reading" pronouncements and diagnoses of others problems as polite discourse. i'll indulge on occasion myself, mostly as "push back". but frankly i long for more civilized lands where it is not acceptable adult behavior. maybe it is time for me to consider a trip abroad to refresh myself....

Isn't an orgasm by oral an orgasm?  You just shot holes in the the alias provider's theory.

and discovered some places where to my immense surprise i was more free there. i found that the locals were also more free to be... well... eccentric.

in the US we think we have the right to get into other peoples minds and psychoanalyze them without their paying a fee and asking for the service.

i'm out of the game at the moment

i have a medical issue to attend before i run off to play. possibly surgery possibly just a lifestyle adjustment. 'til it is settled tex isn't playing except on the boards.

now charming as your suggestion is..... i have to say i haven't done a blind date in well over 40 years.

This technique of psychoanalyzing someone with whom we disagree is called "psychopathologization of dissent" and is an outgrowth of Critical Theory invented by Antonio Gramsci and popularized as an approach by the Frankfurt School.

It is a particularly nasty sort of ad hominem that is largely effective.

Let me give a couple of examples -- I'll give them from both sides of the political spectrum just to keep this off the P&R board.

Pretend I want state-funded healthcare. My reasons might be humanitarian in nature or quite practical, understanding that making preventative care more widely available could reduce aggregated costs later.

Someone disagrees with my advocacy. Instead of debating the facts -- for example, the cost differentials, or the philosophy -- whether or not he should be taxed to pay for someone else's healthcare; he instead says: "You want DEATH PANELS! You want government bureaucrats choosing who gets to DIE!  You are no better than a NAZI!"

Notice that the person who disagrees with me is projecting what *I* want -- making it up as he goes along. Now, instead of debating the issue, we are debating whether or not I'm essentially a psychopathic killer.

Pretend I want shall-issue concealed carry laws. My reasons might be so that the porrest among us who have to wait 20 minutes for police to arrive when they call have access to self-defense, or it might simply be adherence to the Constitution's intent as I understand it.

Someone disagrees with me. Instead of debating facts, s/he instead points out that kids sometimes get hold of improperly stored guns and accidentally harm or kill themselves and therefore I *must* want shall-issue laws because I want babies to be killed. "You want babies to die! You want a return to the Wild West! You want carnage in the streets!"

Again, the person is projecting what *I* want in the most unfavorable fashion possible.

This technique is so widely employed in politics and so ubiquitous on television and talk radio that we do it almost automatically without ever considering its origin or purpose.

The PURPOSE of psychopathologization of dissent and critical theory is NOT to arrive at truth or workable solutions. The purpose is rather to WIN AT ALL COSTS by using social pressures of various sorts caused by the psychopathologization of dissent to neutralize and eliminate your opposition.

Usually this entails what I would call "effortless virtue." That is, by convincing others that mere BELIEF or expression of IDEAS in one way or another makes someone essentially a "good person." Thus, a person holding the right belief can feel self-righteously superior to those holding the "wrong" belief; and excoriate them without penalty.

Either way, we adopt this approach quite widely in the Western world -- and do so in an automatic and transparent way, often unthinkingly releasing an ideological WMD intended to harm and destroy rather than build wellbeing.

precisement (that's French for precisely)

and i loathe it. the effective use of it is why i loathe political ideologues of every stripe. it has replaced rational political discourse with socially pernicious and ultimately self-destructive vitriol.

i am not above it, either. i will not make first use, though. having the option of use in kind as a deterrent seems to be a necessary adaptation. at least that's my fig leaf. most of the flame wars here have a similar dialectical structure.

the only consolation is that it is usually self destructive. in that, the winners are only short term winners. long term they are revealed as fraudulent clueless opportunists. when i use that kind of rhetoric or point out its use, my intent is not to win but rather simply to keep the wolves at bay. i don't want to "lose" without it being a Pyrrhic victory for the winners.

... belong on the P&R board. Maybe you, Mein and I can cut out cool tinfoil hats together?  

Seriously, though -- I can understand why you'd see her posts in the way you see them; but I see them more as a PSA.

After all, informing hobbyists that they are faking it is not in a provider's best interests because it can inadvertently raise the performance bar.

I mean, looking at the post of mine that I linked ... you must imagine that there are a couple of providers out there who wouldn't exactly be anxious to see me. LOL